1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court of first instance shall state in this court's acceptance of the judgment are the third-party reasons stated in the fourth to 19 of the judgment of the first instance.

The part of Paragraph (1) C) of Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the non-party company paid a balance of KRW 30 million, which is a part of the remainder, to the defendant on May 15, 2006, and did not pay any balance again on June 30, 2006. The defendant extended the deadline for the payment of remainder again on August 30, 2006 with the defendant and paid the remainder in full within September 30, 2006, and the contract was entered in the back side of the sales contract of this case to the effect that the contract of this case should be terminated at the time of the payment of the remainder within the said deadline." The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added to this court is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant rescinded the instant sales contract on the grounds of the delay in the payment of the remainder of the non-party company, but the obligation of the non-party company to pay the remainder and the obligation of the Defendant to transfer ownership are simultaneously performed. Thus, insofar as the Defendant did not provide the non-party company with documents, etc. necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership, it does not constitute delay of performance even if the non-party company did not pay the remainder to the Defendant. Thus, the notification of cancellation on October 19, 2006 issued by the Defendant on the grounds of the delay in the payment of the non-party company was invalid, and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the intermediate payment was not extinguished due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. 2) In such a situation, the instant sales contract was effectively cancelled on September 9, 2016 by the non-party company’s cancellation of the instant sales contract, and the non-party company had the right to return the down